From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C85DBF3 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 17:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E94EB16F for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 17:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:02:00 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20170705130200.7c653f61@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <576cea07-770a-4864-c3f5-0832ff211e94@leemhuis.info> <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> <20170705084528.67499f8c@gandalf.local.home> <4080ecc7-1aa8-2940-f230-1b79d656cdb4@redhat.com> <20170705092757.63dc2328@gandalf.local.home> <20170705140607.GA30187@kroah.com> <20170705112707.54d7f345@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Carlos O'Donell , Shuah Khan , Thorsten Leemhuis , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] & [TECH TOPIC] Improve regression tracking List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:48:31 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:33 -0700 > > Guenter Roeck wrote: > [ ... ] > >> > >> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is > >> that people will stop providing bug fixes. > > > > I need to be clearer on this. What I meant was, if there's a bug > > where someone has a test that easily reproduces the bug, then if > > there's not a test added to selftests for said bug, then we should > > shame those into doing so. > > > > I don't think that public shaming of kernel developers is going to work > any better than public shaming of children or teenagers. > > Maybe a friendlier approach would be more useful ? I'm a friendly shamer ;-) > > If a test to reproduce a problem exists, it might be more beneficial to suggest > to the patch submitter that it would be great if that test would be submitted > as unit test instead of shaming that person for not doing so. Acknowledging and > praising kselftest submissions might help more than shaming for non-submissions. > > > A bug that is found by inspection or hard to reproduce test cases are > > not applicable, as they don't have tests that can show a regression. > > > > My concern would be that once the shaming starts, it won't stop. I think this is a communication issue. My word for "shaming" was to call out a developer for not submitting a test. It wasn't about making fun of them, or anything like that. I was only making a point about how to teach people that they need to be more aware of the testing infrastructure. Not about actually demeaning people. Lets take a hypothetical sample. Say someone posted a bug report with an associated reproducer for it. The developer then runs the reproducer sees the bug, makes a fix and sends it to Linus and stable. Now the developer forgets this and continues on their merry way. Along comes someone like myself and sees a reproducing test case for a bug, but sees no test added to kselftests. I would send an email along the lines of "Hi, I noticed that there was a reproducer for this bug you fixed. How come there was no test added to the kselftests to make sure it doesn't appear again?" There, I "shamed" them ;-) -- Steve